Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SuperGnome" data-source="post: 4196395" data-attributes="member: 17297">This bumps into something I've been thinking about, and this thread made me think about more.  We're sort of playing with two approaches to a roleplaying system:  Class based and Skills based (which I prefer to think of as Modular).Old D&D (up to 2e prolly, but including the red box and other 'basic' sets) was strictly class-based.  Your rogue was your go-to guy for traps, your wizard casted arcane spells, your cleric healed, etc.  You chose your roll.  End of story.  2e did work in multiclassing, but it was still class based.3.x was MUCH more modular.  You could mix and match different feats/skills and could emulate other classes to a much higher degree, and be far more successful at combining them to suit your character concepts.  The strict Class-based system was pretty flimsy at that point, and it leaned far more towards a Modular approach IMO.4e seems to be providing a much more controlled atmosphere, while still avoiding being more Modular or more Class based.  It's a different approach than 3e, but closer to that than the more strict Class based ideal of past versions.I don't know if that's a good thing or not.   <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/1.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":1:" title="One    :1:" data-shortname=":1:" />  Do I like the idea of Class-based systems?  I do from a standpoint of simplicity and nostalgia, but I've -always- been quickly bored with going through the same progression over and over. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/2.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":2:" title="Two    :2:" data-shortname=":2:" />  Do I like the idea of a stricly Modular system?  I do for the versatility, but would it seem to water down the classic nostalgia of the core classes?  It could, but I doubt that'd be the case.<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/3.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":3:" title="Three    :3:" data-shortname=":3:" /> Do I like somewhere in between (a la 3e and 4e)?  It does offer each of the core ideas of the other two options, but pulls in both of their flaws as well.The way multiclassing works in 4e seems pretty sweet to me, but I can't say I'd call it multiclassing in the traditional sense (and I know 4e is supposed to be pretty nontraditional).  If I think about it against the backdrop of fantasy fiction and character concept without the chronology of D&D multiclassing, it seems pretty slick to me.Anyone still reading this?   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />*just to qualify my use of "Modular" vs "Skills Based" - Imagine a pool of abilities (Combat, Arcane Spells, Stealth, etc...) or feats for that matter... just the elements each class is built of. You could pick and choose these in a skills based system in a modular fashion, and with no limit on which you could combine.[edit] - Unless I'm mistaken here...  Skills Based could be everyone has the same skills and assigns points to what they want to be good at.  Occurred to me after I submitted.  And btw, the 2e DMG had rules for modular character class creation by assigning points to various abilities from the classes.  Since that was back in the days of non-standard class level progression, you didn't really have a ceiling if I recall.. in any case, it was a cool effort, but ended up being a mess.</blockquote>

Verification